|
|
| Re: IRT FUBAR again (1519014) | |
 |
|
| Home > SubChat | |
[ Post a New Response | Return to the Index ]
|
Page 3 of 3 |
||
|
| (1519516) | |
Re: IRT FUBAR again |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Thu Jul 25 15:53:02 2019, in response to Re: IRT FUBAR again, posted by Broadway Lion on Wed Jul 24 17:20:41 2019. I am extremely familiar with the DeKalb area sine I worked Dekalb as both a Tw/M and a T/D. The problem that Nostrand Jct presents is that except for the area immediately S/O Franklin Av station, the line is on 2 levels requiring the N/B connecting tk from the Nostrand Line to the E/Pky line exp tk to dip under the lower level. S/B might not be that difficult since the S/B lcl tk can be moved a bit west to allow for a ramp down to the Nostrand Line to be built between the S/B exp tk and the relocated S/B lcl tk. The existing N/B tk from President St to the N/B E/Pky lcl tk can remain as is. |
|
|
| (1519526) | |
Re: IRT FUBAR again |
|
|
Posted by VictorM on Thu Jul 25 20:33:02 2019, in response to Re: IRT FUBAR again, posted by randyo on Thu Jul 25 15:53:02 2019. Steven Bauman suggested a method this could be done "on the cheap", but it might not make Brooklyn IRT riders too happy. Basically, it would involve extending the Nostrand Av platforms a car length or two eastward and building a crossover from the eastbound express to the local track just beyond the turnout on the local track down Nostrand Av to President St. A similar crossover would be built in the Manhattan bound direction. However all expresses would have to go to Utica/New Lots, while all locals would have to go to Flatbush Av. |
|
|
| (1519534) | |
Re: IRT FUBAR again |
|
|
Posted by Stephen Bauman on Thu Jul 25 21:32:10 2019, in response to Re: IRT FUBAR again, posted by VictorM on Thu Jul 25 20:33:02 2019. I don't recall quite making that suggestion.What I do recall suggesting is that only locals operate to Flatbush and as locals to Utica Ave to service the Nostrand and Kingston Ave stops. Expresses would either short turn at Utica or go to New Lots. Essentially, the way to avoid merging conflicts at Rogers Jct is to avoid Rogers Jct. |
|
|
(Sponsored) |
iPhone 6 (4.7 Inch) Premium PU Leather Wallet Case - Red w/ Floral Interior - by Notch-It |
|
| (1519587) | |
Re: IRT FUBAR again |
|
|
Posted by VictorM on Fri Jul 26 18:44:55 2019, in response to Re: IRT FUBAR again, posted by Stephen Bauman on Thu Jul 25 21:32:10 2019. I remember at one point you did suggest adding the extra crossover, but the method you just described would be the least expensive of all, but it would reduce Flatbush Av service while increasing Eastern Pkwy service. |
|
|
| (1519589) | |
Re: IRT FUBAR again |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Fri Jul 26 19:32:18 2019, in response to Re: IRT FUBAR again, posted by Stephen Bauman on Thu Jul 25 21:32:10 2019. In the late 60s #4s turned at Atlantic, 'locals' to Flatbush expresses local E (rrs S) of Rogers Jct.That said, a short tunnel allowing locals to Flatbush to straight rail would be the easiest first step. The analogous fix NB is much more complex because of the vertical issues. |
|
|
| (1519767) | |
Re: IRT FUBAR again |
|
|
Posted by randyo on Sun Jul 28 16:42:27 2019, in response to Re: IRT FUBAR again, posted by Jackson Park B Train on Fri Jul 26 19:32:18 2019. The problem comes in with exp service to Flatbush. An additional S/B lcl tk to Flatbush would be of no help if the exp still has to cross in front of N/Lts bound lcls. |
|
|
| (1519816) | |
Re: IRT FUBAR again |
|
|
Posted by Jackson Park B Train on Mon Jul 29 01:27:30 2019, in response to Re: IRT FUBAR again, posted by randyo on Sun Jul 28 16:42:27 2019. true. I believe there is a way to reconfigure but it is too complex to be easily implemented--let alone is there underground space available. Not likely in the couple of decades I might have left. |
|
|
|
Page 3 of 3 |
||
